German Foreign Office Going Back To Windows
Yah, apparently /. was choosing not to post the comments for a while. It just said 0 comments, and the story seemed old enough that it should've had a bunch. Worked out the obvious explanation after I made that post and /. continued to say there 0 comments.
High Severity BIND Vulnerability Advisory Issued
its a theoretical attack and there is a theatrical work around
Presumably (hopefully?) involving Natalie Portman and hot grits..?
German Foreign Office Going Back To Windows
Why no comments yet? Is everyone in denial?
Valve Beats Google, Apple For Profits Per Employee
There's also Stardock's Impulse platform and Gamer's Gate. I think Steam took off because they were riding on the coattails of an already very-popular game. It's all about getting enough marketshare to start with that your platform becomes convenient, rather than annoying.
Fibre Channel Over Ethernet: From Fee To Free
Does that actually give you 4gbit throughput to any host across a single data stream, or is like most link aggregation schemes in that it just spreads concurrent sessions across multiple physical links, but each session is limited by the bandwidth of a single physical link?
The Joys of Running a Bug Bounty Program
OT, but congrats... your post is currently scored at -1, Insightful.
A far cry from the coveted +5 Troll but still pretty cool!
Duke Nukem Forever Not Edited For Australia
The problem with our current video game rating system is that MA15+ is the highest we have. The only other option the classification board has is to refuse the game classification altogether, thereby preventing it from being sold in Australia. This results in things that shouldn't pass a MA15+ rating getting one, because they're not so bad they should be refused classification altogether.
It's also why the idiotic "gotta protect the children!" crowd who oppose a higher rating for video games are showing themselves to be unthinking hypocrites who have zero interest in actually reducing the ease of access to violent or 'harmful' games by minors, and are instead interested only in shoving their own particular moralities down the throat of every adult in the country.
Charity Raising Money To Buy Used Satellite
You are describing a system of communal ownership forced on them by their costs and their income level.
Its unlikely that would persist if they could obtain free internet service.
Why not? How would putting a geosync comms satellite above them change their income level or cost of the communal equipment?
UnXis Group To Acquire SCO
There was, but you missed it. Here you go.
Apparently the price has increased. Probably inflation.
Physicists Call For Alien Messaging Protocol
Wasn't that precisely the idea that "The protocol could be tested via a website that allows users to create, retrieve and decrypt sample messages that conform to the protocol - which also demonstrates communication across human cultural boundaries" was addressing?
North Korean Domain Names Return To the Internet
Pretty easily, at least in this case. The root servers provide these name servers for .kp:
kp. 172800 IN NS ns2.kptc.kp.
kp. 172800 IN NS ns1.kptc.kp.
which are both located on the same class C:
ns1.kptc.kp. 86400 IN A 184.108.40.206
ns2.kptc.kp. 86400 IN A 220.127.116.11
Which generally is indicative of the same network segment. I guess North Korea doesn't have a need for a particularly robust internet infrastructure, so there's a good chance there's just some servers listening on those addresses and no fancy load-balancing or anycast routing going on, and very likely they're at the same physical location.
If either of those stop responding to queries, then resolution of anything under .kp will fail.
FBI Seeks Suspect's Web Game Records
Umm... I think I get the point you're trying to make, but you basically implied that this congresswoman deserved to be shot because she didn't answer a question.
That's pretty sick.
Google ReCAPTCHA Cracked
Specific questions are difficult to scale though. It works well against normal users (who only have their own resources at their disposal), but if you're running a captcha-breaking business, you have a lot of people with the ability to access a centralised database and customised software. They probably can't make a program smart enough to 'watch' an advert and answer arbitrary questions about it or correctly interpret an idiomatic expression, but once one of their employees has worked out the answer, the question/answer pair gets added to the database and that particular question can be answered by everyone else without thought - or even by software without any human interaction.
The only solution to that is to increase the number of questions so the database hit-ratio becomes very low, but that's quite hard to do. Most such questions will need to be written by a human rather than machine-generated, so it quickly becomes more expensive than just deleting the spam. Plus, there's typically a limited number of questions you can ask, especially if you consider that the questions need to be simple enough for legitimate users to be able to answer.
Aussie City Braces For Worst Flood In 118 Years
This page lists major donors to the state Government's flood relief appeal. There are some resources amongst the list.
Aussie Retailers Lobby For Tax On Online Purchases
Even if we give him the benefit of the doubt, what he's basically saying is that brick and mortar stores are a very inefficient and expensive way to provide goods to people. Rather than improve their efficiency or allow the market to kill off the old and no longer useful ways, we should artificially inflate the cost of more efficient methods of providing goods to people, so that all the methods we have available are equally inefficient.
From a short-term perspective, keeping the jobs etc. sounds good. Long-term though, this sounds a bit like the broken window fallacy.
Running Your Own Ghost Investigation?
I think the key difference is that the proposition that tiny creatures too small to see cause illness and that killing them with heat will stop them from doing so is something that is testable and verifiable. Also, while I don't know and, like you, can't be bothered finding out the details, I suspect Pasteur didn't go from "milk is white, how pretty!" to "I bet there's tiny bugs in there that make us sick but we could probably kill them with heat!" in one step. More likely, he already knew that for some unknown reason, heating milk before consuming it reduced the likelihood of certain illnesses. That knowledge, combined with other knowledge, resulted in a hypothesis that there were creatures in the milk that were so small they couldn't be seen with the naked eye causing the illness, and that heating the milk killed them. Again, that's a hypothesis that can be tested in various ways.
If Pasteur's claim was that tiny creatures in milk might cause illnesses, and that heating the milk may or may not kill them, and if it does, it may or may not prevent them making us ill, and in fact they still might manage to make us ill even if we don't drink the milk at all through mechanisms I've not yet figured out, then he'd still be right (about the tiny creatures, at least)... but what value is that to anyone? A statement that is true has no value in and of itself: if a neanderthal man conjectured a 100% accurate model of the universe, it wouldn't have done them any good since they lacked the means to prove it was correct. There'd be nothing to set that correct model apart from the incorrect 'models' of superstition that others were positing. A truth that cannot be verified is no better than an untruth that cannot be verified.
On a different note, I think your point was that we shouldn't mock people who come up with extraordinary claims because they might be right. But history is full of examples of people making extraordinary claims and being mocked for it, who are able to back up those claims with evidence, thus proving themselves to be right and silencing those that mocked them. Humankind has been mocking those who make extraordinary claims probably since we were capable of making such claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof in order to be taken seriously; it's a strategy that has worked very well for us for the entire history of humankind. Why should we change now?
If someone makes an extraordinary claim and not only doesn't provide evidence for that claim, but fails to provide a testable hypothesis that someone else could use to prove or disprove the claim, then they deserve to be mocked. Possibly the claim itself ought not to be, but the person making it does. Such claims contribute nothing of value to anyone, so we may as well get a laugh out of it.
First Pictures of Chinese Stealth Fighter
Might look interesting but it's not the airframe that's important anymore, it's the electronics because dog fights don't exist anymore, the missile technology is so good that fighters just launch missiles while the target is still over the horizon and invisible.
That's not really true. The technology is there and almost certainly works as well as advertised, but there's almost always been a requirement for the pilot to positively identify the enemy before firing upon it, and that usually requires visual confirmation. Very few air-to-air kills have been made at beyond visual range, for this reason.
First Pictures of Chinese Stealth Fighter
The theory behind the missile-fighter design was that you'd lock up the target at way beyond visual range and down it with missiles. I think that's how most people perceive modern air combat, in fact - tag a blip on the radar display, fire a missile and excitedly call Fox Three over the radio, wait for the blip to disappear, go home for dinner. In reality, the rules of engagement almost always require the pilots to visually identify hostile aircraft before firing upon them. So the missiles may be very effective, but shooting blind at radar contacts is a bit of a no-no. And once you're close enough to see the enemy, you're probably too close for the longer range missiles to be effective, plus there's a high risk of the missile accidentally locking up a friendly if you shoot into a furball.
So dogfighting capability was returned to the aircraft design and pilot training in a really big way. In the case of an all-out war scenario, the risk would probably be deemed acceptable and the ROE would be relaxed and you'd see a lot of BVR combat taking place, but we're unlikely to see that happen (fingers crossed).
NJ Server Farms Remake the US Financial Markets
High frequency trading, as we know it today, has barely been around for 5 years.
If you think that's long enough for the market players and the regulators to really understand the effects of HFT on the marketplace... well, not many people agree with you.
I think you missed the point of the analogy. Our daily lives are full of things that were once newfangled technology that many people resisted and demonized, saying it would destroy this-or-that aspect of society. Most technological advances don't destroy all that much, and many have provided enormous improvements in our quality of life.
HFT may be new, but people will certainly be studying it to see what effects it's having, and incremental adjustments to it will likely be made to try to maximise its benefits while minimizing its drawbacks. While I tend to agree that new technology tends to improve things, it's also worth remembering that most new techs also bring new problems. So just because HFT may have some negative impact on the market, that doesn't mean it's not overall an improvement. Just like the introduction of the automobile saved us from the pollution and sanitation problems of horses, but brought with it problems in the form of exhaust gasses. And the electric car will solve that problem but create others, and so on...
It's not just a black and white "this new tech is good" or "this new tech is bad" - every time we solve one problem, we usually create another, but that's the very nature of progress.
Does Windows Phone 7 Have a Data Transmission Bug?
I would argue that a 4 GB plan should provide 4 GB for a given fee, whether it gets used up over one month or one year. And when that is used up, they should bill you for another 4 GB.
The main reason for having clear quotas is to allow the ISP to estimate for bandwidth usage. As another poster said, it's not the total volume that really matters, but the peak rate of data flow. By saying "you can download up to X GB this month", over a large number of customers, you get fairly predictable usage patterns. If you say "you can download X GB whenever you like" to a large number of customers, you get very difficult to predict usage patterns, which means that provisioning sufficient bandwidth for peak usage becomes difficult.
The 'ideal' solution would be for the ISP to provide a real-time view of their available capacity on each of their transit links, and for users to self-regulate their traffic. If the usage is below say 50%, then you can download as much as you like for no fee. As the utilisation increases, those who have already used a lot of bandwidth get a lower quality of service, unless they pay an increasing fee for "premium" bandwidth. That way, if you're a low usage type of customer, you can just use the internet whenever you want and get full speeds. If you're a high usage type of customer, you can monitor the available capacity and reduce your usage during peak periods, go nuts during low usage periods, and pay a low fee. Or, you can pay heaps and go nuts all the time.
The reason that solution won't work is because most people wouldn't be able to understand what the heck was going on, and many of those who did understand it really can't be bothered with that kind of micromanagement. So, a periodic quota provides a kind of in-between point which is easy enough for users to understand (especially if you provide nice graphs and such) and which also gives the bandwidth provider a reasonable stable and predictable usage pattern.
And if a download drops midway and has to be restarted from the beginning (or if a page fails to load and requires reloading everything), the phone company should have to eat that cost.
The problem with this is that it's difficult to identify who's at fault if a download drops. Why should your phone company have to pay more because you're trying to download from a site that's unreliable and keeps dropping offline? What if the download failed due to user error, e.g. moving outside of the service area during it? What's more, even if you do manage to establish clear rules, trying to prove whose fault it actually was after the fact will be very difficult.
My attitude is that I'm paying a monthly fee that provides up to 5 GB per month and I'm only using a fraction of that, I'm wasting money. Thus, I might as well find a way to max it out every month.
Yep, and this is in fact what I do with my home internet connection: non-critical downloads are kept aside until toward the end of my billing cycle, at which point I let them loose since I don't particularly care if I end up shaped for a few hours before the quota resets. But again, this is predictable behaviour which makes network capacity planning easy.
On the other hand, I have a 1 GB quota for my phone which I never get anywhere near (lucky to break 100 megs) and I've never tried to maximise my usage of that... but my phone isn't my primary internet access mechanism, so I guess the psychology is a bit different.
totally bogus dude hasn't submitted any stories.
totally bogus dude has no journal entries.